James Dobson: Pro-Life Cause May Have to Settle for Overturning Roe, Abortion

Life News ^ | 10/1/10 | Steven Ertelt

[wagglebee]

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Ask most pro-life Americans and they will tell the you the ultimate goal for the pro-life movement is a constitutional amendment recognizing the legal status of unborn children from conception. But former Focus on the Family president and founder James Dobson says that may not be attainable.

Before a constitutional amendment, either federally or in any state, can be recognized, the Supreme Court must be changed to remove its current pro-abortion majority -- pegged by most pro-life legal scholars as 5-4 at best.

Once that happens, the Supreme Court can reverse the infamous Roe v. Wade decision that allowed for virtually unlimited abortions throughout pregnancy for any reason and has resulted in more than 52 million abortions since 1973.

When the high court overturns Roe, states may be able to pass their own laws prohibiting abortions, and Dobson says that may have to be good enough for the pro-life movement because getting three-fourths of the states and Congress to ratify a constitutional amendment is an extraordinarily difficult process.

"I would be willing to settle for each state making a decision, and we'll fight that out in the state legislatures in 50 states. I just don't see the Supreme Court saying this is flat-out illegal," he lamented. "I wish they would, but I don't think that will happen."

Dobson's comments also refer to the theory among some pro-life legal observers that the Supreme Court could find the necessary votes to overturn Roe -- throwing the abortion battle back to the states -- but not having enough votes to uphold a constitutional amendment.

The election of President Barack Obama set back the pro-life cause because it allowed him to replace retiring pro-abortion jurists, John Paul Stevens and Sandra Day O'Connor, with abortion advocates who will almost assuredly vote to keep Roe and unlimited abortions in place for decades to come.

The pro-life movement won't have the opportunity to replace a pro-abortion Supreme Court judge with the potential fifth vote to overturn Roe until at least 2013, assuming Obama is defeated by a pro-life presidential candidate in the next election.

Dobson, who made the comments, according to a OneNewsNow report, on the Today's Issues program on American Family Radio, also said he applauded pro-life groups and advancements such as better-quality ultrasounds for changing the face of public opinion.

"You can't deny it's a baby," Dobson says. "You see it sucking its thumb, moving and turning cartwheels in its mother's womb."

Recent polls have consistently shown a majority of Americans are both pro-life and strongly support limits such as no tax funding for abortions or parental involvement for teens.

[Guenevere]

The more I read your posts the angrier I get!

If you had spent 1/2 the time, blood, sweat and tears Dobson has fighting, fighting, fighting for sanctity of life, the family and all that is good.....

..I might care what your opinion of him is!

You don't get the right to dismiss, undermine or insult him!

[EternalVigilance]

How stupid. The clearly stated purposes of the Constitution are not “penumbras” and “emanations."

Especially in the case of the very thing that the founders held to be the very raison d'etre of government, all government.

[wagglebee]

You remind me of Justice William O. Douglas, who justified the Griswold decision based on the “penumbras” and “emanations” of the constitution [sic].

There are no penumbras or emanations, it is there in black and white.

No the Supreme Court is not meant to be a super-legislature, with whoever controls 5 votes rewriting the constitution at their whim. As a conservative I am opposed to that, and whoever is not opposed I call a Liberal.

Then why do you dispute what is there?

[rogue yam]

In order to overturn Roe v. Wade we will need more strict constructionists on the Supreme Court. Obama has just placed two young dictators on that bench. Thus we need a conservative President and a solid majority of GOP Senators (i.e. near 60) for some time going forward. The only way to achieve this in a sustainable fashion is to present a governing agenda that appeals to most Americans. Limited government and judicial restraint appeals to a far greater percentage of Americans today then pro-life absolutism. Let’s get the majority we need as soon as possible and then work to sway public opinion on the issue of life.

I believe that God wants us to flourish rather than to fail nobly.

[wideawake]

The XIVth Amendment already guarantees all persons in the US the right to life.

What we need is an executive that actually decides to enforce the provisions of the Constitution.

[EternalVigilance]

"I would be willing to settle for each state making a decision, and we'll fight that out in the state legislatures in 50 states. I just don't see the Supreme Court saying this is flat-out illegal," he lamented. "I wish they would, but I don't think that will happen."

-- James Dobson

In that one Dobson quote you have three horribly destructive things:

1. The abandonment of the core principle of our republic, that our rights come from God, not from any man, and that they are therefore unalienable.

2. Abject surrender to the idea that there's nothing we can do to stop this holocaust.

3. The mistaken notion that the courts are supreme in this country.

Dobson has utterly failed in his duties as a leader, especially as a Christian leader.

If me pointing it out makes you angry, there's nothing I can do about that.

Personally, I think he's the one you should be mad at. He's complicit in the moral neutering of the pro-life movement. I've known it for quite some time, but this is the last straw.

[SuziQ]

the hearts of 90 per cent of Americans need to be changed at minimum before such changes will filter thru to the courts, congress, and bureaucracy( who will fight viciously I assure you!)

True, and if that doesn't happen, there is absolutely NO hope for a Constitutional Amendment.

[EternalVigilance]

Want to hear something telling?

In one month Amendment 62, the Personhood Amendment, will be on the ballot in Colorado. And Focus on the Family, which as most know is headquartered in Colorado Springs, is AWOL. Same goes for all these pro-choice for states politicians like McCain, and Palin, and Thompson, and the Pauls, et al.

Conversely, those who believe the right to life of every person must be protected at all levels of government are there fighting for 62.

Think about it.

[A Strict Constructionist]

“True, and if that doesn’t happen, there is absolutely NO hope for a Constitutional Amendment.”

That and the fact that every argument in this thread could be used for the rights of the mother. They are using the old Catholic argument that the life of the fetus is of greater worth that the mother because it is innocent.

I’m against abortion but I’m against a Constitutional amendment. Let the States handle this issue.

And to those that disagree no you are not superior because you believe differently.

[Jim Noble]

There are two issues here that almost everyone runs together:

1) The USSC has no power such as that claimed by them in Roe v. Wade. Any court with that power has no limit on its power.

2) Abortion is wrong and should be outlawed.

Progress on #1 is more possible than progress on #2.

[soxfan]

Dr. Dobson is a RINO. He, and all of those to the left of him, must be purged, I tell you. We need ideological purity. That is clearly the path to majority party status.

Or not.

[EternalVigilance]

Let the States handle this issue.

In this case "this issue" happens to be the right to life, the supreme right.

Which other unalienable right do you want to "let the States handle"?

[Guenevere]

I would like to know your credentials.... to have the right to call Dr.Dobson a RINO!

What have YOU done to protect the unborn?.....

I'm waiting.

[wintertime]

Do the Marxists ever settle? Answer: NO!

The Marxists push for what ever they can get and then push some more. We should do the same.

[Patton@Bastogne]

.

I'm staunchly Pro-Life ...

As a Constitutionalist (read: Non-Sharia Law) ... Abortion is properly settled on a state-by-state basis ...


.

[usconservative]

We must NEVER settle.

Agree. Question for Dr. Dobson: Did Jesus "settle?"

[EternalVigilance]

As a Constitutionalist (read: Non-Sharia Law) ... Abortion is properly settled on a state-by-state basis ...

Which other unalienable rights do you want the states to be able to alienate if they see fit?

[Truthsearcher]

Exactly, the left never settle, the take what they can get, then they push for more.

Of course we’ll take reversing Roe, but then we go for the next step.

[EternalVigilance]

read: Non-Sharia Law

So, those who believe that the unalienable rights of all individual persons must be protected are Islamic radicals?

But those who think that states can alienate unalienable rights, totally abrogating the concept of natural God-given right which our republic and our liberty are premised upon, are "Constitutionalists."

How logical.

/s

[wagglebee]

As a Constitutionalist (read: Non-Sharia Law) ... Abortion is properly settled on a state-by-state basis ...

Please clarify, are you suggesting that a nationwide abortion ban would be the equivalent of Sharia law?